Page 1 of 1

Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 04:26
by Tiktacy
From what I can tell, thanks are meant to show people what piece of advice, what idea, and what suggestion is either the most useful, the most agreed upon, or the most well thought out.

I will be blunt, they don't.

Somtimes in GDD, posters will be showered in thanks if they give good suggestions, but anybody who is genuinely interested in the topic is going to read what people have to say about it whether it was thanked a lot or not. So what does it accomplish? Maybe it is somewhat useful just for gauging the credibility of someone, but bad players can thank other bad players for giving bad suggestions.

At its worst, thanking can promote a negativite environment where a group of people who seem to agree on something become more credible than the words they are saying. For example, let's say xuaxua posts an idea on GDD that is worth considering, but i come in and say "blah blah blah mildly on topic comment, sarcastic remark." And then sandman25 gives me a thank because he thinks it's funny. Now we are in a situation where me and sandman are breeding a poisonous environment because people are naturally going to refer to the amusing sarcasm as the main idea, and suddenly xuaxua's idea won't look so good to them because I said that and sandman supposedly "agrees."

That is just one situation where this may happen, there are actually people on this forum who will regularly(and purposefully) defamate another persons character and receive thanks for it. Thanking should just be removed to avoid this, i think it does more harm than good. Or at least be improved to remove its major issues.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 05:30
by WalkerBoh
The real problem with thanks is that we don't have a "you're welcome" button.

(Won't people still defecate on others' character regardless of thanks? Without thanks, how would you know how overwhelmingly everyone disagrees with you,,,?)

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 06:16
by and into
I actually think the thanks button exists mainly so that threads aren't littered with zero-content replies that just say "yes, exactly" or "you said it" or "LOL" or "hear, hear." When that's all you have to say in response, you can avoid having to say anything and just hit the thanks button.

EDIT: Not that I'm saying thanking can't lead to the problems you describe also, just pointing out the positive side.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 09:59
by dpeg
Tiktacy: That's a good point. I have used thanks in at least three ways:

1. Thanks = Yes, this is also my opinion.
2. Thanks = Effort went into this posting, thanks man!
3. Thanks = You are such a jerk (sarcastic thanks).

I try to thank for 2. only, but I have to admit I also did 1. and 3. The point about 2. is that I will thank someone's analysis & proposal if thought went into it and the presentation is elaborate -- even if I disagree with the content (this is why 1. and 2. are not the same). However, when things get more flame-y, I am inclined to support "my side" with thanks, and then the feature is not really useful.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 14:04
by Tiktacy
and into wrote:I actually think the thanks button exists mainly so that threads aren't littered with zero-content replies that just say "yes, exactly" or "you said it" or "LOL" or "hear, hear." When that's all you have to say in response, you can avoid having to say anything and just hit the thanks button.


GDD has a rule against that now though. Replies are required to have content.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 15:09
by Tiktacy
dpeg wrote:Tiktacy: That's a good point. I have used thanks in at least three ways:

1. Thanks = Yes, this is also my opinion.
2. Thanks = Effort went into this posting, thanks man!
3. Thanks = You are such a jerk (sarcastic thanks).

I try to thank for 2. only, but I have to admit I also did 1. and 3. The point about 2. is that I will thank someone's analysis & proposal if thought went into it and the presentation is elaborate -- even if I disagree with the content (this is why 1. and 2. are not the same). However, when things get more flame-y, I am inclined to support "my side" with thanks, and then the feature is not really useful.


Thank you, I appreciate the detailed response.

You are right that their is a difference between 1. And 2. They are hard to distinguish sometimes and may actually hinder the credibility of other posts unintentionally.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 16:49
by and into
Tiktacy wrote:
and into wrote:I actually think the thanks button exists mainly so that threads aren't littered with zero-content replies that just say "yes, exactly" or "you said it" or "LOL" or "hear, hear." When that's all you have to say in response, you can avoid having to say anything and just hit the thanks button.


GDD has a rule against that now though. Replies are required to have content.


Yes, but then it is a good way to show support for a proposal when you don't really have much to add. (Also for Advice, YASD, etc.) This is especially so in the case of a very focused, brief proposal in GDD that tries to call attention to a bad interaction or interface improvement, etc. Someone—including a developer—might read it and think, "Okay, but is that really a common issue? Does that really bother a lot of players?" If the post has a half-dozen thanks, it drives the point home.

Thanking can lead to a sort of "bandwagon effect" that isn't good, you are right about that, Tiktacy. But I think what mostly creates a negative environment is people posting really mean-spirited stuff. The bandwagon-ing only usually happens when things have gotten flamey, anyway, in which case even without the thanks there would be a problem.

All that being said, the Tavern is a much more positive environment than the vast majority of other forums and message boards on the Internet. Yes, that's a very low bar to clear, and we could certainly do better, but it is something to keep in mind.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 18th April 2014, 17:12
by Tiktacy
and into wrote:
Tiktacy wrote:
and into wrote:I actually think the thanks button exists mainly so that threads aren't littered with zero-content replies that just say "yes, exactly" or "you said it" or "LOL" or "hear, hear." When that's all you have to say in response, you can avoid having to say anything and just hit the thanks button.


GDD has a rule against that now though. Replies are required to have content.


Yes, but then it is a good way to show support for a proposal when you don't really have much to add. (Also for Advice, YASD, etc.) This is especially so in the case of a very focused, brief proposal in GDD that tries to call attention to a bad interaction or interface improvement, etc. Someone—including a developer—might read it and think, "Okay, but is that really a common issue? Does that really bother a lot of players?" If the post has a half-dozen thanks, it drives the point home.

Thanking can lead to a sort of "bandwagon effect" that isn't good, you are right about that, Tiktacy. But I think what mostly creates a negative environment is people posting really mean-spirited stuff. The bandwagon-ing only usually happens when things have gotten flamey, anyway, in which case even without the thanks there would be a problem.

All that being said, the Tavern is a much more positive environment than the vast majority of other forums and message boards on the Internet. Yes, that's a very low bar to clear, and we could certainly do better, but it is something to keep in mind.



I guess I don't see the problem with a large number of people responding with "you took the words right out of my mouth, this is a great idea, I support it entirely. +1." If anything, it would probably be even BETTER to do it that way, because then the line between "I clicked the thank button on accident" and "This is a fantastic idea!" Won't be unclear. Clarity on the internet is very important since our tone isn't being heard, so hindering that clarity further comes off as a bad idea to me.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Saturday, 19th April 2014, 08:12
by Siegurt
Well, I for one don't give any more weight to heavily "thanked" posts than unthanked ones, however I do get annoyed by scrolling down past large numbers of contentent-less replies where little or nothing is said, so anything that condenses this into less scrolling for me I consider a good thing.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Saturday, 19th April 2014, 14:34
by Tiktacy
Siegurt wrote:Well, I for one don't give any more weight to heavily "thanked" posts than unthanked ones, however I do get annoyed by scrolling down past large numbers of contentent-less replies where little or nothing is said, so anything that condenses this into less scrolling for me I consider a good thing.


Fair enough. I guess people aren't much in favor of this then.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Saturday, 19th April 2014, 18:55
by cerebovssquire
dpeg wrote:Tiktacy: That's a good point. I have used thanks in at least three ways:

1. Thanks = Yes, this is also my opinion.
2. Thanks = Effort went into this posting, thanks man!
3. Thanks = You are such a jerk (sarcastic thanks).

I try to thank for 2. only, but I have to admit I also did 1. and 3. The point about 2. is that I will thank someone's analysis & proposal if thought went into it and the presentation is elaborate -- even if I disagree with the content (this is why 1. and 2. are not the same). However, when things get more flame-y, I am inclined to support "my side" with thanks, and then the feature is not really useful.


it's especially annoying when you get thanked and you don't know if it's 1, 2 or 3

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Saturday, 19th April 2014, 23:59
by mikee
breeding a poisonous environment of causticity

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Sunday, 20th April 2014, 00:37
by and into
mikee wrote:breeding a poisonous environment of causticity


Sounds like a cool god ability. :)

Seriously though, I don't think the thanks button is going away any time soon. Of course if a large majority of people on Tavern wanted the thanks feature gone, it would make sense to remove it, but that's not the case. Until then—as with most things—we must simply strive to be mature about it.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Tuesday, 22nd April 2014, 23:58
by Galefury
I just use it for 1 (+1) and 2 (thank you). 2 is usually not about effort for me, but about making me laugh. I appreciate funny jokes. It's usually pretty obvious which one it is.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Wednesday, 23rd April 2014, 20:00
by galehar
Remove the thanks feature.

Calling for feature removal are often the posts with the highest thanks to characters ratio. Also, I'm not serious about removing thanks. It's much better than pages of +1 posts, even if it's sometimes unclear if the thank is on scale 1 or 2 of the dpeg scale.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 07:17
by Arrhythmia
I just really like the ecstatic thrill of thanking posts, let's keep it.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Friday, 25th April 2014, 19:31
by damiac
If you really hate thanks, then you should degrade their quality by increasing their quantity. Meaning, thank every single post you see. The rapid 'thank' inflation will cause a quick drop in value. Before long, one would need an entire wheelbarrow of thanks to represent the slightest nod of gratitude, and then I think we will see 'thanks' fall rapidly out of use.

It's really Thankonomics 101

EDIT: FR: Self Thanking AKA Thanksturbation

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Wednesday, 7th May 2014, 05:45
by Patashu
This thread was secretly started as a way to increase one's 'have thanks' count easily, and it's working well.

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Wednesday, 7th May 2014, 13:30
by TehDruid
Bring on the anonymous karma rating! xD

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Wednesday, 14th May 2014, 08:21
by Mankeli
dpeg wrote:3. Thanks = You are such a jerk (sarcastic thanks).

LOL!

Siegurt wrote:Well, I for one don't give any more weight to heavily "thanked" posts than unthanked ones, however I do get annoyed by scrolling down past large numbers of contentent-less replies where little or nothing is said, so anything that condenses this into less scrolling for me I consider a good thing.
Yeah.

Arrhythmia wrote:I just really like the ecstatic thrill of thanking posts, let's keep it.

Hear hear!

and into wrote:Seriously though, I don't think the thanks button is going away any time soon.
Cool!

and into wrote:All that being said, the Tavern is a much more positive environment than the vast majority of other forums and message boards on the Internet. Yes, that's a very low bar to clear, and we could certainly do better, but it is something to keep in mind.
You said it!

Yeah, I prefer thanks over the this kind of communication

Re: Problems with "thanks"

PostPosted: Wednesday, 14th May 2014, 13:20
by vengefulcarrot
Arrhythmia wrote:I just really like the ecstatic thrill of thanking posts, let's keep it.


No one knows what becomes of Arrhy if the thank button were to be removed.

Some say he no longer skips a beat.
Some say he replies to every post with a "Thank you for this awe inspiring post of inspirational creative explanatory thought-provoking yet alarmingly simple to understand content, yours irregularly Arrhythmia".
Others say he becomes Maud?

No one really knows.